studio_click

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the deliberate slow movement ('glide'), target resolution (CSS selector or visible text), and error behavior ('fails with target not visible'). It does not disclose every nuance (e.g., left-click assumption), but is notably transparent for a UI automation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences: first states the action and style, second explains target types, third covers failure and recovery. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple click tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, target specification, failure conditions, and a troubleshooting step. It does not detail return values or disabled element handling, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'glide' motion, the fallback to visible text, and the error recovery strategy, enriching meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool glides to a target and clicks it, clearly identifying the verb (click) and resource (target on screen). It distinguishes from siblings like studio_hold or studio_type by specifying a deliberate click action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implicit usage guidance by explaining the target types and failure behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like studio_hold or studio_scroll. The recovery suggestion (take screenshot) adds some context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.